She has "some naging questions to which i can't find answers. regarding the mecanics of evolution theory."

Over to you Southstar/Martina.

I, Woodbine, am in no way responsible for how this thread turns out. I just opened it. It's not mine. In fact it has nothing to do with me. Quick look over there - a shiny thing!

Thanks

My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.

So I wrote up in one of their forums on evolution and began shining some light on their very dim wits. It was all fine and dandy and I was about to prove that their whole idea was rubish when the called in their version of Darth Maul.

Now see I'm not a biologist and my knowlege of genetics is very superficial.

That said:I had posted a study regarding mutation rates in humans. The study quoted in the talkorigins archive (Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304). was a bit outdated a new study Roach JC, Glusman G, Smit AFA, Huff CD, Hubley R, Shannon PT, Rowen L, Pant KP, Goodman N, Bamshad M, et al. 2010. Analysis of Genetic Inheritance in a Family Quartet by Whole-Genome Sequencing. Science [Internet] 328:636–639. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126....186802) finds that the amount of mutations is about half of the previous study. This new study does create quite an imbaresment for the evolution theory, and creates havok in the timeline.

Any ideas on how I could get out of this

I have other questions but let's take one at a time

Thanks for your help!!Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Without the article, then I can't help too much, but I can say a few general things.

The mutation rates in different parts of the genome vary wildly. For example, the membrane proteins in mitochondria would rarely mutate, because any mutation that changed the function would probably kill the organism.

On the other hand, the mutation rate in the immune system, at certain times, is exceptionally high, while the system randomly tries to find a way to latch onto your latest flu.

So, I would take any of these kinds of studies with a serious grain of salt. What genes were they studying?

One thing to remember when arguing with creationists is not to get into the trap of answering every single detail that they bring up. You will run into something no one knows about yet and then they will say "Yeah, see".

What you also need to do is demand that they provide the same level of detail that they demand of you for their own notions.

For example, in terms of genetics, you could ask exactly how (i.e. what mechanism did the designer use) to create the 673 HLA-A alleles from a maximum of 10 alleles (Noah, his wife, and the daughter-in-laws) in less than 6000 years. That would require a mutation rate so high that the entire population would be one big tumor.

Of course, they will explain it away with magic, but the more you require them to explain things away with magic, the more that others will see its really not an explanation.

The point is, don't let them set the pace. Evolution is a very, very powerful tool and it simply works. Industry uses principles of evolution to make a profit... not creationism. Businesses from financial markets to factories use evolutionary principles every day... not creationist principles. Evolutionary principles have developed processes and products that humans could not have, even (in at least one case) a product that humans still don't know how it actually works... yet it does. (Neatly avoiding the potential attack of 'frontloading'.)

Evolution is used to predict where to find cancer treatments and improve agriculture. Evolutionary principles have saved millions of lives. Creationism has not (at least in any actual double blind studies).

They can say all they want, it doesn't change reality.

Hope that helps.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Why not post a link to the thread you mentioned? That seems like the best idea.

It's in italian, I live in italy. So you might say well why not ask in some italian forum, well mainly cause I've been "fighting" with the stuff from talk origins and I thought that you guys might be more directly acquainted with it.

While I wait perhaps for a responce for my first question. Here's my second.

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

Marty.

First, I would say that there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution.

In reality, we shouldn't expect to see macroevolution actually happening. There is a study that showed a plant mutation resulting the offspring being in an entirely new genus. I'll have to get back to the house, it's on my drive there.

But, again, only creationists demand something like this that is just not a requirement of evolution.

It all comes down to the artificial system of taxonomy that we use today.

It can take millions of years for a population to change at the level of the species. For example, in spite of the massive morphology changes in dogs, they are all still dogs. And we've only been breeding them for a few thousand years. When will they become 'not dogs'?

I've also got a series of blog articles that you might find useful: Cassandra's Tears

They are mainly written for the high school level student, but there are generally a lot of references. I've also specifically talked about macroevolution a couple of times. You might also read the chapter summaries from Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish which is all about how we know that common ancestry does exist. It's quite enlightening and should serve you well.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Obvious troll is obvious, why waste your time? I've seen this act a hundred times on this board alone.

--------------"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers------"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

Although both the observed transition-to-transversion ratio and the proportion of CpG mutations in our data match predictions, our estimated human mutation rate is lower than previous estimates, the most widely cited of which is 2.5 × 10^-8 per generation (10) based on three parameters: a human-chimpanzee nucleotide divergence per site (Kt) of 0.013, a species divergence time of 5 million years ago, and an ancestral effective population size of 10,000. More recent estimates indicate a nucleotide divergence of 0.012 (9), species divergence time between 6 and 7 million years ago (11–15), and ancestral effective population size between 40,000 and 148,000 (16–19). With these parameter ranges and a generation length of 15 to 25 years, the mutation rate estimate is between 7.6 × 10^-9 and 2.2 × 10^-8 per generation, which is consistent with our intergenerational estimate of 1.1 × 10^-8. Our estimate is within 1 SD of an earlier estimate of 1.7 × 10^-8 (SD of 9 × 10^-9) based on 20 disease-causing loci (20). The rate we report is for autosomes and should be substantially lower than that of the Y chromosome because in the male germ line, more cell divisions occur per generation. Although our rate differs approximately as expected from the recently reported estimate of 3.0 × 10^-8 (95% CI, 8.9 × 10^-9 to 7.0 × 10^-8) for the Y chromosome, this difference is not significant (21).

.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 08 2011,07:11

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Homo sapiens: The human data are less reliable than the C. elegans, Drosophila and mouse data. A number of dominant-mutation rates have been inferred from the frequency of affected children of normal parents, and sometimes confirmed by equilibrium estimates for those dominants with severe effects. These values range from 10-4 to 10-6, with a rough average of 10-5 (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down). For genes of size 103 b, this corresponds to a rate of 10-8 per b per generation. An estimate based on specific changes in the hemoglobin molecule gave 0.74 x 10-8 per b per generation (VOGEL and MOTULSKY 1997 Down), but this is clearly an underestimate because other kinds of changes are not included. A third, quite independent estimate is based on rates of evolution of pseudogenes in human ancestry, which are likely to be identical to mutation rates (KIMURA 1983A Down). This gives about 2 x 10-8 per b per generation (CROW 1993 Down, CROW 1995 Down). We shall take 10-8 as a representative value. However, because the overwhelming majority of human mutations occur in males (see below), the male rate must be about twice the average rate, or 2 x 10-8.

Doesn't this push back the common descent with chimps to about 12 million years? An therfore makes it not in line with fossile evidence.

1) I have no clue, as far as I'm aware, the fossil record of chimpanzees is very, very spotty.

2) It doesn't matter, it's still longer than the creationist timeline anyway. Remember, if your arguing with creationists, your job shouldn't be to defend science. It should be to show them how wrong they are in every particular.

Of course science can be wrong. On the other hand, science corrects itself and (to my knowledge) no creationist has ever corrected mistaken science. All the great hoaxes that creationists point to... corrected by science, not creationists.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

As I explained, 1) i was drawing from talk origins site2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

As I explained, 1) i was drawing from talk origins site2) i tried looking for an italian site but could find it although I admit I didn't look very hard3) I'm south African so I think in english, reading technical terms for me is easier in english rather than italian.

CheersMarty

Let me explain.

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

It's common stripe of creationist.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

I've always liked that approach.

"The Beagle went down with all hands, two days out of port. No survivors. Origins was never published. There's no scientific theory of speciation. Your go, but remember: it has to explain all the data, be testable and repeatable by anyone, anywhere, and make verifiable predictions, backed by positive evidence."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

You came into the forum looking very much like a typical Creationist/ID troll.

I did not believe you were who you said you were, hence the attitude. (Itchy trigger finger, you see.)

If you are legitimate you have my apologies.

One question, though; how did you find AtBC?

Hi,

Well as I explained I was using the Talkorigins.org website as the major inspirational tool. But Alas, some things weren't very clear, (I stopped taking Biology in standard 7). So the postes I made came increasingly under attack by some that were apparently at least more knowelgble than I. So I needed some help. There is a link on the site to a forum Panda's thumb. From there I got here. :)

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Yes i'm quite sure he's attempting the "bury them with bullshit" strategy. Unfortunaly my knowlege of molecular biology is not suffiscient to fight back on even grounds.

I thought I'd ask a list of basic claims he could make against evolution.

That way I could take hime down one at a time.

Thanks guys your all great!Marty

Remember, the science is well understood.

They MUST support their position. That is all. Remind them and keep reminding them that

"Even if they totally discredit evolution, right now... it still doesn't mean creationism or anything else is correct. Only positive supporting evidence will do that." Then ask them where their positive supporting evidence is. Ask what their research program is. Ask what products their stripe of creationism has produced.

I predict you will be banned in no time.

Then just tell your friend that they obviously can't handle real discussion, therefore you must assume that they have nothing.

Hi,

Yes I expect to be banned soon, however since alot of people are begining to think somethings up. I expect they need to beat me up first.

Marty

Just remember... offense is the best defense.

The science is decided. There are no legitimate scientists on the other side of the fence. Not really.

Demand that they give you all the details you are demanding from them.

One could also point out that the validity of the theory doesn't depend on direct observation of speciation. As I understand it, that's usually a slow process, in which as two populations diverge the ability to interbreed declines, perhaps slowly.

But, the theory does imply patterns that should be consistently observed if it's correct (or at least a close approximation), but that would not be expected in combination otherwise. The main pattern here is the the matching nested hierarchies constructed from multiple traits or DNA segments. (Ironically, hybridization causes an exception to the nested hierarchy thing.)

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on thisMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Any ideas on thisMarty

Well, you can't say that the fossil was once an ancestor of a modern species. That's impossible, but it's also not required for science. The creationists often demand this because they know it's impossible (or they actually think it's required).

That's not what transitional means. Transitional means it has some characters of past species and some characters of future species.

No one thinks that Archeopteryx was the ancestor of all birds. Nor does it exist between dinosaurs and birds. But (using talk.origins archives) when you compare characters, the Archeopteryx has mostly dinosaur characters and only a few bird characters.

Like, read about Tiktaalik. In this case Shubin knew what he wanted to find. He knew the characteristics it had to have... which defines in what environment is had to live. He also had a time range in which it should have existed. He was able to look for rock layers of the appropriate age and type and in only a few years found Tiktaalik.

The creationists might say that Tiktaalik is not transitional because it's the wrong age. That is incorrect. Transitional is about characters (location of holes in bones, numbers of bones, kinds of teeth, even patterns in shells) not time or direct ancestry.

Your dad is transitional between you and your grandparents. But also, your dad is transitional between you and your uncle. Your grandfather is transitional between you and your cousins. Transitional has nothing to do with time. You can look up the definitions of transitional and post those if they think otherwise.

You might also take a look at the evolution of whales on wiki and the testimony of Kevin Paidan in the Kitzmiller trial (on talk.origins). He describes in pretty good detail about the transitionals. It's not just the nose, or the forelimbs, or the hind limbs, or the vertebrae, it's all of them taken together.

That's the one thing that creationists also can't deal with. The volume of information on science. They can't grasp that we aren't just making these supposed links between fossils based on one thing. For whales, for example, we have hundreds of fossils, we have genetic studies, we have biogeographical studies, chemistry (the Oxygen isotope ratio in bones is different for marine creatures than land creatures). So their explanation has to deal with all of that.

Keep asking. "Well, explain how you think it happened. Why do you think so? What evidence supports your opinion?"

As far as the teeth. It's all about expertise. You can't just hand a tooth to anyone and they can say, "that's a new species". The people who are making these determinations are experts in their field. They have been studying their chosen subject for decades. I can watch a movie and tell you the make, model number, number of rounds, and range of about any firearm in the movie, just from a glance. I've been studying firearms for decades. I can't look at a shark tooth and tell you what kind it is from, but I know that there are people that can.

That's all it is. When the scientists propose a new species, it undergoes some intense scrutiny. It's not "Hey, I found a new species." It's "I think I found a new species and here's my evidence why. What do you think?"

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

My brother is getting sucked into the evil sect of creationist people who for some wild reason that is above mindboggeling suggest that evolution is just a theory an bla bla bla.

Well, evolution is "just a theory". The thing is, saying that evolution is "just a theory" is kind of like saying that Bill Gates is "just a multibillionaire" -- it's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish intended to cast unwarranted doubt upon its subject. Creationists who say evolution is "just a theory" are counting on their listeners to understand that statement as using the common vernacular meaning of 'theory', which is basically 'a wild guess', never mind the fact that in the context of science, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea that successfully explains a whole lot of data.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,07:46)

Is there any direct evidence that microevolution leads to macroevolution. Feel free to quote studies.

What's going to stop 'microevolution' from leading to 'macroevolution'? Arguing that the former doesn't lead to the latter, is very much like saying that yes, you can walk 5 steps, but it's clearly impossible to walk 5,000,000 steps. Demand details. Where's the barrier that prevents microevolution from leading to macroevolution? How does this alleged barrier prevent new mutations from occuring?Also: Since this is a Creationist question, ask your Creationist 'friends' to define 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. It's a damn good bet that 'microevolution (as defined by Creationists)' cannot lead to 'macroevolution (as defined by Creationists)' -- but unless they're defining those terms the same way real scientists do, they're refuting a caricature of evolutionary theory, and a refutation of a caricature is a caricature of a refutation.So ask your Creationist 'friends' what they mean by 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'. Be sure to point out how and where their definitions differ from the definitions used by real scientists. And if their definitions contain vague/undefined terms, demand that they define those vague terms. If they say "macroevolution is a change from one kind to another", ask them what a 'kind' is, and how the heck you can even tell which 'kind' an arbitrary critter belongs to.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 08 2011,14:05)

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. ... The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

If that's what they're saying about fossils, point them at the Comparison of all skulls page, a collection of Creationist "human or ape?" pronouncements about six different fossil specimens -- and the amusing bit is, Creationists themselves can't make up their minds which fossils are human and which are apes! This is very curious indeed. Because if the difference between 100% human!!1! and 100% ape!11! actually was as obvious/evident as Creationists assert it to be, shouldn't Creationist judgments about these specimens be 100% consistent? Alas (for Creationists...), those judgments aren't 100% consistent.For maximum hilarity, look at the cases where a Creationist has changed their mind about whether or not any given Specimen X is human or ape. PS Taylor, in a 1992 publication, asserted that both Java Man and Peking Man were 100% apes -- but he declared them both to be 100% human in a 1996 publication. Similarly, Duane Gish declared the KNM-ER 1470 (Homo habilis) specimen to be 100% human in a 1979 publication, but a 1985 Gish publication declared that specimen to be 100% ape.So... if a Creationist says "Neanderthal human, everything else ape", point out that Duane Gish says Java Man was an ape, and ask them what they know that Duane freaking Gish doesn't?

Concerning you first example. The italian Sparrow, it derives from a hybridization of two other spieces.

To be a good point should it derive form internal mutation and not hybridization?

I'm shure that if I post it someone will come up with: well dogs have been crosed alot of times and obviuosly their jeans are mixed?

This might sound like a realy stupid question to you but please bear in mind that last time I looked at genetics was at school 8 years ago.

ThanksMarty

Why should hybrids be excluded? They are merely a way of combining genes, and gene variants. When this results in a self reproducing population with restricted out-breeding, it is 'macroevolution."

If creationshits start redefining "species," "evolution," and what ever else shows them to be fools, just bust them on their inconsistency.

But, there were dozens of other examples, use them if you prefer.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

I don't want you to get your hopes up. Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

Hi,

Could you give me a link to the paper.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

There is mainly alot of rubish that I can handle the posts by Ioseb-Bassebet however are the ones that are giving me hassels.He works in a lab and has a degree in something or other (how the hell did he get it?!! mysteries of italy)

My posts are Southstar87

Marty

I speak no Italian, but I had a quick peek over there and noted that one of Ioseb-Bassebet's posts totaled 6731 words.

He didn't use any phrases like "oil-soaked strawman sprinkled with red herrings" did he?

I don't want you to get your hopes up. Creationists are wedded to their beliefs. They will not change them.

The best to hope for is to instill some doubt and be able to point to them and say, "They can't deal with real science and hard questions about their own beliefs."

You might be able to influence some fence sitters, but you will not change the mind of the real creationist.

Hi Everyone,

First I want to thank you all for your great support! I don't have high hopes of making them change their minds after all they do have blind beliefs. But since they have thrown junk around I have prooven that it is junk and maybe it's cause I'm in italy, this site presumes that everyone is dumb and can't read english.

Now what get's my hopes up is that at least a few of them have started asking the right questions. Critical thought. And well my brother is waking up ;) What really did it, however was a quote on their stupid booklet (of which the author remains anonimus can't immagine why) quoted Richard Dawkins as stating that His work "should be taken as Sience fiction", and that therefore all scientists don't really belive in their work anyway. Well since I have most of his books I went to look it up and well it said: " THIS book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. Cliche or not, ‘stranger than fiction’ expresses exactly how I feel about the truth".

Even when my brother get's out... you know what? I'm going to continue fighting so that the truth gets out there! I usually read Badastronomy.com and often wondered why Phil Plait get's so upset... Now I understand I've met them too...

CheersMarty

Ah, quotemining at it's finest (or weakest).

Congratulations and thank you for standing up to them.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anywayMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

ThanksMarty

That's a REALLY good question and it all depends on how you define species.

To give you an example of the huge inconstancy in this regard, you might be familiar with Escherichia coli. It is a massively diverse species of bacteria. In fact, it's so diverse that only 20% of the DNA is common between all strains of it. {Lukjancenko, O.; Wassenaar, T.M.; Ussery, D.W. (2010). "Comparison of 61 sequenced Escherichia coli genomes". Microb Ecol. 60 (4): 708–720. doi:10.1007/s00248-010-9717-3. PMC 2974192. PMID 20623278.}

When you get to vertebrates, you could go with something like reproductive isolation, but you have to get pretty specific. Lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) are obviously different species, yet they can interbreed and produce reproductively capable offspring, which by most indicators would suggest they are the same species.

In short, life is squishy. Humans want everything to be in a category and those categories to have meaning. They don't, not really.

Wolves, dogs, and coyotes interbreed all the time. Three different species. Is the hybrid a wolf-dog or a dog-wolf?

I maintain (and I may be almost alone here), that absent the medium sized dogs, the toy dogs and working dogs should be different species. In fact, there's more diversity within dogs, than there is in all of Carnivora combined. On the other hand, most of that diversity is in a very small amount of DNA {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2919785/}

So, really, who knows. I doubt anyone will ever be able to say, "look, this dog really isn't a dog". What will be more likely is something like "Hey, 12,000 years ago, in 1995 was the first divergence of this new species of pet from what used to be called 'dogs'."

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Okay,I have a question for me ;)It sounds awfully stupid but maybe it isn'tAt what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?

Not a stupid question at all. "At what point do you stop calling a dog a dog and start calling it something else?" includes, as an unstated premise, the notion that you can distinguish Dog from Not-Dog. More generally, your query hints at the larger question of how the heck one goes about distinguishing a member-of-species-X from a not-member-of-species-X. And (as the link to Wikipedia indicates) this is not an easy question!Since we're talking about dogs in particular, I'd say that the BSC (Biological Species Concept) -- i.e., can the critter successfully interbreed with dogs? -- is about as good a distinguishing criterion as you're likely to find. The BSC doesn't work for all living things (like those which reproduce asexually, for instance), but it's pretty good for 'standard' animals like dogs and horses and such.

I've just finished reading a paper in the New Journal of Botany on the evolution and taxonomy of the narrow-leaved marsh orchid complex (within Dactylorhiza) in Britain, Ireland and the rest of Europe. These have all originated as allopolyploids of the same two diploid species in apparently four separate episodes. In other words, two species hybridise and the hybrid undergoes genome duplication, which results in instant reproductive isolation (more or less). Biogeographical and molecular evidence suggests that three species evolved after the last glacial maximum, whereas the fourth predates it. What's really interesting are the differences in ecological (habitat) preferences shown by these four species, which serves to further isolate each species from the others, setting them on separate evolutionary trajectories.

I was about to post it then i read the first line of the study "This subjective and highly personal commentary critically reviews..."

They, the dims, have a thing for picking stuff like this out of even well written papers and with that saying something stupid like... See even the people writing it call it a personal whim "see she's puting out rubbish" ha ha ha. I really need to stay a step or two ahead of them.

Thanks anywayMarty

I understand and it's unfortunate for your purposes that he prefaces the abstract with those words. For what it's worth, there's a lot of "critical review" before he gets to the personal opinions. His review is a good summary of the methods used and issues involved in plant speciation. Very accessible to the non-molecular specialist, like me.

It also illustrates one of the reasons why the biological species concept is less useful when applied to plants than vertebrates. Another reason is the presence within some species of reproductive barriers that serve to promote outcrossing. For example, primroses have flowers in two forms, pin and thrum, differentiated by relative length of stamens and styles. Plants with pin flowers pollinate those with thrum flowers or vice versa. Pin to pin or thrum to thrum generally doesn't work. Are primroses one species or two under the biological species concept?

One thing that I keep getting back is that fossils that are found are placed in species according to whim of whoever finds the fossil. Now I really can't imagine it going on a whim.. Is there a fixed protocol, or some sort of methodical proof that a fossil belongs to one spieces or another. In some cases only a tooth is found or part of a jaw bone or whatever.

The main example they throw out is well you see the fossils you find are all extinct apes except for Neaderthals they were human.

The main argument I throw out against this is that "I presume" that DNA studies are carried out on the bones and those give proof of who they belong too. But DNA decays over time so how do you go about to prove that let's say a dolphin was once a Basilosaurus.

Here is a question that was posted on the site. Which I have a little of a hard time answering.

After mentioning speciation which caused wide spread panic. Obvioulsy a few of them started changing the goal post and started asking for exapmles of new families forming. I answered that you will only see them formed after they are formed and looking back you'll say well at about this time the dog became a ciuaua (which to me classifies as a different spiecis ;) )

Some asked for proof of fish turning into mice, which is great cause it would be proof against evolution if ever it was found.

But then the usual chap comes up with this:

To verify up to what point speciation can lead to macro changes you need to see how much "weight" these changes have in genetic and especially molecular terms. This you need to do in terms of measuring the amount of information that has been modified but more importantly how much information has been added.

I would answer this way: Well if it's a new species, there's got to be different information, probably non much different information but a little different it would get more different the farther away you were from the speciation event. It's the added part that I can't get..

Any ideas?Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in. Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well. I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

It's in the creationist playbook.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

As I understand it, speciation just means that the two populations will then accumulate changes independent of each other, i.e., evolve in different "directions".

For two subpopulations to cease regular interbreeding doesn't appear to me to require any great amount of change, and certainly doesn't require that one of them become more complex (whatever that means) than it was.

Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of not-insane people saying "Ask your Creationist buddies how they measure this 'information' stuff". You might even go further than that, by asking them to determine which of two different nucleotide sequences has more 'information' in it. Or even a series of such questions...First, a pair of arbitrary nucleotide sequences. Which sequence has more information in it?

Second, an arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence plus a one-codon insertion (the inserted codon being underlined in the second sequence here; you needn't preserve the underlining if you present this pair of sequences elsewhere). Which sequence has more information in it?

Third: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon deleted from it (the deleted codon is underlined in the first sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?

Fourth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide inserted into it (inserted nucleotide underlined in the 2nd sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?

Fifth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with a single nucleotide deleted from it (deleted nucleotide underlined in the 1st sequence). Which sequence has more information in it?

Sixth: An arbitrary nucleotide sequence, followed by that same sequence with one codon replaced by some different codon entirely (the relevant codons are underlined in both sequences). Which sequence has more information in it?

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

[quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote]Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

ThanksMarty

Here you are assuming that there is some 'goal' for evolution.

Why should a species or population change if it is already satisfied? i.e. for its environment, it is fit, it has sufficient diversity to resist major changes in the environment, etc.

Basically, what you are asking here is "Why are my grandparents still alive?" Which on the face of it, is pretty silly.

On the other hand, you are exactly correct. Evolution always happens to living things. The Coelocanths that were discovered off the coast of South Africa, while 'living fossils' are as distinct from fossil coelocanths as modern humans are distinct from Homo habilis.

So, on one hand, speciation doesn't need to occur. On the other evolution always does. Two subtly different questions.

You might take a look at the different types of speciation. Once you see what PART of a population is speciating, then you will see why the question is meaningless.

BTW: One other tact for your creationist buddies to deal with about information is to take cubist's stuff and then add one more question to it. Provide them with a strand of DNA that codes for a protein and one that is totally random of the same length (Excel is good for creating this). Then require that the use creationist (ID) principles to determine which is which. If they can't do that (and, even in theory, they can't, I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible), then how can they tell designed from evolved?

Note that when I say mathematically impossible, the only tool that IDists have ever said they needed was math. There are some clues in the sequence itself, but they are very subtle and require pretty good knowledge of DNA... which is using science, not creationism.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

[quote=Henry J,Nov. 10 2011,23:27][/quote]Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

ThanksMarty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

--------------Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

ThanksMarty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.

If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.

ThanksMarty

In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question

There's also another misunderstanding presented in Southstar's question - it's basically a rewording of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys."

The answer of course, which is beautifully illustrated by ring species, is that while some members of a given species may gain some beneficial or neutral mutation, many members still do not. If the non-mutated parental stock - the original species-remains competitive in its environment and/or has sufficient flexibility to adapt to some other environment, it will continue to exist along with it's daughter and cousin relatives.

Evolution is not all of some parental species morphing into some other species, yet this is what many creationists think evolution is. Similarly, evolution does not require all members of some species to die off/disappear when some portion of that species gain some genetic variation.

A third misconception embedded in the question is that evolution implies that newer organisms with more changes and complexity are "better" than older, simpler organisms. This is not what evolution states or implies. Evolution as a theory merely notes that change occurs and how; there's no implication about change being "good" for organisms in general. Further, if one really understands evolution as an explanation of a process, one also understands the concept of adaption. Mutations and genetic drift are considered "beneficial" if a group of organisms can use the change to help them adapt to given environmental conditions and thus produce more offspring than its competition/predation rates. If an organism group without said change can adapt to given environmental changes such that they produce more offspring than their competition/predation rates, guess what? They'll survive too.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug. Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?Marty

Do we?

No one has done these experiments for thousands of years. Yet, we do know that speciation can occur within one generation.

We also have Lenski's data of E. coli research over the last 25 years. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/

Now, look at what happened in Lenski's lab. One of the defining characteristics of E. coli is that inability to metabolize citrate. That character is how researchers determine the difference between E. coli and (IIRC) Salmonella.

Yet, Lenski, through natural selection and random mutation has discovered a E. coli strain that can utilize citrate. If this had occurred in non-bacterial species, it would probably be sufficient for it to be declared a new species. Bacteria... meh.

Likewise, it also depends on how you define "something different". Are dachshunds exactly the same thing as wolfhounds? No, are the different species? Honestly, that question is pretty meaningless.

Dachshunds and wolfhounds can interbreed and have grandchildren (i.e. the F1s are not sterile), but so can domestic cats and servals, so can lions and tigers, and we 'know' those are different species.

Species aren't nearly as static or fixed or separate as most people would think. So the question is really moot. Yes, they might still be fruit flies, but the only way to determine if they could interbreed with fruit flies of a 1000 years ago would be to (somehow) get some fruit flies from a 1000 years ago and try it.

Which leads me to a really good question to all.

Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?

For example Diplodocus has a known time range of almost 4 million years. Do you think that the later members would be sufficiently different from the earlier members to prevent breeding (which is one definition of species, which IMHO is sorely lacking as evidenced above).

Things are not just cut and dried in Biology, no matter how much some people wish or claim that they are.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Could an organism (say human or dog) successfully interbreed with a member of the same species from a thousand or 6000 years ago?

.

I would say that based on ecological research and personal anecdotes, it depends on the given species' sexual behaviors. For example, mallards are well known to have sex with (or attempt to have sex with) nearly all other duck-like waterfowl, including many species of geese. In other words, mallards have very lax sexual boundaries. Green-eyed Tree Frogs, otoh, are notoriously picky about who they mate with.

We humans are definitely NOT picky about our sexual partners as species go, and I'm more than willing to lay down my net worth on the bet that we as a species would definitely mate (and produce offspring) with our ancestors from 10,000 years ago. Heck, there's evidence we interbred with Neaderthals...how picky could we really be?

Dogs...hmmm...I'm aware of some breeds that will mate with just about any other dog-like animal, so I'm willing to lay a similar bet on them as well.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?Marty

Define "new bug"!

Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.

Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.

The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.

Am I making any sense?Marty

Define "new bug"!

Okay a bug that due to the cumulative passed down mutations is a different genius or family to the original bug.

Let's say that cumulative mutation transmits 1% of mutated DNA from one generation to the other, after 50 generations you should get an interesting amount of mutated DNA.

The numbers are made up, maybe the mutation rate is smaller but that would just push the number of generations needed higher, eventually whatever the amout of generations you need, genetic mutation alone should create a different genius or family right? Now if we do this with a fruit fly it might take us 1000 (depending on mutation rates) years if we do it with e.coli we might need a couple of years.

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

Again, this is very, very general.

Some areas of the genome can barely mutate at all or the organism (and therefore that mutation) will die. Other areas can have massive amounts of mutations with little or no affect on the organism at all.

In terms of speciation, I still think you are thinking too narrowly. Go back to the clines (ring species). If you define species in terms of mating, then where do you draw the line?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Whether something is labelled as a new family or genus depends on whether that would help in keeping track of species relationships or not. It's not an intrinsic property of the species itself.

This!

It seems creationists have a hard time grasping the fact that our biological taxonomy system is a tool we use to try to organize the biological world into categories for our convenience. It doesn't cleanly reflect reality.

ETA:

An interesting article that notes the difficulty in categorizing the natural world.

So, which better demonstrates a species change: Great Dane vs Jack Russel Terrier, Plains zebra vs Mountain Zebra, or Siberian Tiger vs lion? If you answer, explain why you chose one over the others.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in. Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well. I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.

But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.

Actually, no. You'd just be changing the selective pressures, because you've altered the environment. Any genotype/phenotype that gave a fly an advantage in this new lab environment would still be selectable (and selected). You could argue that it's artificial (human-caused) selection instead of natural selection, but that's really just semantics.

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,10:09)

What it boils down to is that, in the absense of natural selection, do speices evolve randomly.

Yes. It's called genetic drift. Even when there's no selective pressure at all, a certain fraction of new mutations will get fixed in a population over a given period of time. Depends on breeding population size and mutation rate.

Because it shows the stepwise changes in the RNA sequence from the original product all the way through the final sequence which has a 90-fold improvement over the original.

Plus, there is an example of an early negative mutation being a prerequisite mutation for further increasing the effectiveness of the sequence.

Then, you can ask them, exactly where the designer stepped in. Dr. Joyce is still around and they can ask for the original data, including the sequences that were collected throughout the experiment... if they dared.

No, it's not a change in species, genus, or family, but only creationists have those requirements anyway.

You might read up on evolutionary developmental biology as well. I predict that the next move will be the whole "How did body plans develop".

So it's basically a non-answer. About what I suspected. They are refusing to define the concepts in any way that can actually be challenged.

This quote is from the first link

Quote

There is no consensus about the status of these ideas, and the result has been a growing foundational discussion within biology and the philosophy of biology. Some have hailed the employment of informational concepts as a crucial advance (Williams 1992). Others have seen almost every biological application of informational concepts as a serious error, one that distorts our understanding and contributes to lingering genetic determinism (Francis 2003).

There are at least four methods of thinking about information in biological organisms listed in this same article.

You're best bet is to reply thus:

"So, you have no concrete standards for applying or using information systems in biological systems. Until you do so, then the entire conversation is a moot point.

Information has a variety of very specific definitions and related equations depending on what you are doing. Until you define exactly what information is being measured, how it is being measured, and how it can be utilized, then there can be no further discussion on this topic."

A really fun game you can play on them was given here by Eric. Ask them which of the following contains more information: A) a 30 minute speech by Winston Churchill or B) 30 minutes of white noise.

If they are truly conversant in information theory, then they will answer B. If they answer A, then they are confusing 'information' with the 'meaning' given by that information. The two are NOT the same thing and this can be easily shown. For example, if you type in a snippet of machine code, they can easily break it down into information (it's just hexidecimal letters and numbers), but they must know how to translate that into meaning to understand what it is. The information content is completely separate from the meaning. This is the purpose of cryptology, to hide the meaning and still be able to send the information.

Anyway, I predict that they will complain that you aren't really interested in hearing about it or that it is too difficult to follow unless you have studied information theory (which none of them have either).

I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math. I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis). You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis. I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.

I will personally make you a deal... I have, sitting one row of cubes over from me, 10 mathematicians, 3 with Masters degrees, and 1 Ph.D. candidate in math. I also have access to an even dozen psychometricians (all with Ph.D.s in statistics and/or statistical analysis). You are free to tell them that you have access to these people as well.

All the creationists have to do is type up their mathematical processes and then you post it here and we can take care of the analysis. I promise you, in over 5 years of dealing with this, not a single creationist has ever taken me up on the offer.

Lol okay I've sent the challenge let's see what happens :)

Thanks!!Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space.

Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago.

For example, if we find that the Ribosomal S12 protein family has a Fit value of 379, we can use the equations presented thus far to predict that there are about 1049 different 121-residue sequences that could fall into the Ribsomal S12 family of proteins, resulting in an evolutionary search target of approximately 10^-106 percent of 121-residue sequence space.

Durston has a habit of thinking that what is in the protein databases comprises the universe of functional proteins. To get the sort of number he wants, he'd have to do an exhaustive assay to validate it. Instead, he "predicts" exactly the sort of tiny numbers he wants, and seems to be satisfied that he has demonstrated something. It's conceptually no better than the "cost of search" thing Dembski and Marks came up with a few years ago.

Luisi has an interesting comment on that. He says that there are roughly 10^54 possible proteins (not counting a large number that cannot be produced due to energy reasons).

Yet life on Earth only uses 10^13 - 10^15 proteins.

Doesn't really help anything, but I found that interesting and hadn't considered it before.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

PS Still waiting for them to give us a definition of information and how to measure it in biology ;)

If this is about "WHat Darwin Got Wrong", then you wouldn't get any arguments from anyone. Darwin worked over 150 years ago. The level of knowledge we now share and know would boggle his mind, but I doubt he would disagree with any of it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it?

<a href="http://wfsc.tamu.edu/faculty/tdewitt/WFSC622/Arnold%20chapter.pdf">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects.

But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population. And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations.

Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights. And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations. Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

I'd take this opportunity to present my own kind of ring species, which actually isn't a ring in a geographical sense, but it presents a continuum between intraspecific and interspecific differentiation:The pea aphid complex.

Ask him to define 'information' and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

...and give examples of it's measurement in biology.

First, ask IDers why we should even care about "information" in evolutionary biology.

If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology. Of course, if that were the case, then the IDiots' position would be based on fact rather than unshakable religious dogma, and they would be able to answer questions like 'which nucleotide sequence has more information in it?"

His thesis is that two distinct traits are coextensive if and only if whatever has one has both. For polar bears, the traits `being white' and `matching the environment' are clearly different traits; grasshoppers have the second but not the first. Since all polar bears have both, a theory of `selection for` has to decide which of these traits were selected for in polar bears; which, he says the Darwinian account of adaptation can't do. So there must be something wrong with the Darwinian account of adaptation. Except for being succinct, this is just a standard case of free-riding: either being white free-rides on matching the environment or matching the environment free-rides on being white. Which does the adaptationist prefer; and what is his argument for preferring it?

<a href="http://wfsc.tamu.edu/faculty/tdewitt/WFSC622/Arnold%20chapter.pdf">Lande and Arnold </a> would certainly argue that that is possible, and indeed, one of the uses that they support for G-matrix multiple regression analysis is to find out on what traits selection was "directly" working versus what traits are changing because of correlational effects.

But this use, demands that one know that G is stable through the changes in the population. And that is not only not known, but known to be unlikely in natural populations.

Of course, if one has additional information about the population -- especially the kinds of 'hands on' information that provides useful clues to the biological pathways involved -- then these kinds of G-based analyses can provide some additional insights. And that, is how I think that e.g., Steve Arnold really uses G-matrices when he uses them to study natural populations. Much of that field-based understanding of the systems in questions gets hidden in the written work, but it is what makes him confident that his results make sense.

So this guy redefines 'traits' for us. I see.

A trait is a distinct variant of a phenotypic character of an organism that may be inherited, environmentally determined or be a combination of the two.[1] For example, eye color is a character or abstraction of an attribute, while blue, brown and hazel are traits.

"Matching the environment" is NOT a trait. It is a consequence of a trait. For example, the an Arctic fox, in its winter coat would match the environment in winter, but would not do so in the summer.

Since his entire basis is wrong, then everything he says after that (i.e. Darwinian evolution can't do something) is wrong too. Not because Darwinian evolution can do what he wants, but because what he wants is nonsensical.

This is exactly like the requirement that creationists often use to say, "We must have a complete fossil record." Knowing that it is impossible AND not required for anyone except them.

Again, you can argue all the math, facts, requirements, etc you want to. If your initial claim or assumption is nonsense, then everything after that is a complete waste of time.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should be care? The postulates of natural selection say nothing about "information".Mutations produce alleles controlling different heritable phenotypes, we know that. All phenotypes, hence the alleles, don't have equal reproductive success in a given environment. We know that too. That's all that's needed.

To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

About the polar bear example... Starbuck's post isn't only bogus, it came out of nowhere, beginning with a "His" that refers to god knows who. Not sure what to make of this.

If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should we care?

Because when an IDiot/Creationist makes noise about what can or cannot be done by mutations, they are necessarily (albeit by implication, rather than by explicit declaration) talking about what sorts of mutations are or are not possible. For instance, take the claim "mutations cannot create information". This is equivalent to the claim "no mutation can transform a genetic sequence with X amount of information into a different genetic sequence with (X+N) amount of information". And that claim, if true, puts restrictions on what sort of mutation-induced changes in genetic sequence are possible! We could determine whether or not a particular case of cancer was due to genetic mutation by sequencing the patient's own DNA, then sequencing the DNA from one of the patient's tumors, and finally measuring the information content of DNA from both sources. We could make genetically-modified organisms which are all but completely immune to mutation, because we constructed their DNA to contain the lowest amount of information consistent with being a functioning life-form...Now do you see why we ought to care about IDiot/Creationist claims re: 'information' and evolutionary biology, if those claims actually were true?

Quote

To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

Hey, I agree with you 100%! I just like to play with counterfactuals; in this case, take an IDiot/Creationist claim at face value, and see what the consequences of that claim are.

However for all the millions of questions that have been answered not a single answer has turned out to be "intelligent design".

So, while a good scientist will not, cannot, rule out "ID" as a possible explanation as yet there is no actual evidence for ID at all and so no reason to consider it as an explanation for anything at all.

Sure, some people believe that evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life we see around us, but they are unable to provide an alternative with *any* explanatory power whatsoever.

So the question asked in that paper is:

Quote

How does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype?

Yet it seems that ID does not even get close to a look in

Quote

The evidence for evolution itself is robust as it comes from the three independent lines that each tells thesame story: history (fossil record and isotope dating),morphology (taxonomic relationship and comparativeembryology in living organisms - evolutionary changestarts off as developmental change ) and molecularsequence relationships.

So whatever the evolutionary synthesis becomes in order to be able to answer these questions satisfactory I'd not bet that ID would have anything to do with it, no matter how long you wait.

Does that help?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

The evolutionary synthesis, the standard 20th century view of how evolutionary change occurs, is based on selection, heritable phenotypic variation and a very simple view of genes. It is therefore unable to incorporate two key aspects of modern molecular knowledge

How does that follow? The evolutionary synthesis doesn't make any assumption on the simplicity of genes and their link to phenotypes, and even what's the source of the variation (mutation, methylation). Quantitative genetics is a solid discipline. There is heritable phenotypic variation and non-heritable variation, with epistasis, dominance, maternal effects... all being complex, but factored in the equations. Only heritability (narrow sense) is subject to natural selection. Simple as that. So the neo-lamarkians should show how the newly discovered mechanisms (methylation, etc) integrate into the equations, before claiming that they overturn the current theory. So far, I haven't seen how epigenetic is supposed to affect evolution. Has anyone got a good review?

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year. I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify. All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen. In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking. We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

How does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype?

Again I recommend "The Probability of Life" by Kirschner and Gerhart. While the first 1/3 of it or so is kinda nebulous, the later chapters go into some fascinating explorations of this very question.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year. I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify. All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen. In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking. We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

I was confused by this passage from the penultimate paragraph of Bard's review:

Quote

Complex systems have properties that cannot be pre- dicted, albeit that they can be understood with hindsight, and it may well be that the network for some trait (e.g. bone growth or pigmentation pattern) in the offspring has quantitative properties that are very different from those of the parents, not because of new mutations but because the novel mix of the rate constants will yield a trait that is an outlier of the normal distribution (known as a sport in breeding circles). As a result, the offspring may be able to colonise a novel environment far better than its peers. Equally important, this variant will naturally be heritable because it derives from the kinetics of the network (minor variation) rather than additions or losses to the proteins that comprise them.

I understand and agree that a novel combination of existing alleles could result in the offspring having a novel phenotype due to particular network interactions. But how would that novel phenotype be heritable? If it depends on an unlikely combination of alleles, it's not likely to recur in the subsequent generation.

And even if it did result in selective fixation of the relevant combination of alleles, how does that go beyond existing evolutionary theory?

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong? 3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right? 5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know. Thanks for all your help!Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot? 3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong? 3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right? 5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?6) Aside from the one link supplied do you have other links that would help debunk durston?7) If you have other fav sites (asides from talkorigins that in some things is a little outdated) that debunk Idiots in general let me know. Thanks for all your help!Marty

Ps Some info on the Breed of Idiots that I have picked a fight with:1) A few are hard core nuts, most are just ordinary street people who know next to nothing about anything except tomorrow nights reality show. So alot of the stuff that I explain needs to be explained in simple terms. Giving basic examples and giving complete but information without overdoing it.2) Aside from the information theory thing. They do not supply their version. They seem to be following tactic: Show that whatever scientific theory is not certain and has problems (do this by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at them), proceed in showing that therefore scientist base their theories on faith. But since the theory is off, their faith is misplaced and esentially relies on errors. The real faith is about ecc... I'll spare you the rest. Is there a name for this spiecies of Idiot? 3) Given the above you'd say well you must have something better to do "go to a party or something". But I feel it's wrong, ordinary people are getting sucked up by this, I mean if it weren't lies it would be be okay, I mean if it makes you happy fine. But it's lies and this bothers me.4) When they run out of arguments they start insulting and saying that I don't understand and change the subject. But they can do this only a limited number of times already some ordinaries in the forum have started to show signs of saying hey she's got a point.

You guys are probaby really used to all this stuff. And my post is way to long.

Thanks... really thanks :)

If you can do a signature line at the bottom of each of your posts, then do something like this:

"Can you provide the same level of detail about your notion that you demand for science?"

Seriously, at the end of every post, ask them what their position is and list all the evidence that they have for it. They won't answer, they can't answer and it really hammers home the fact that they are basing their notions on nothing.

Here's the deal with information... it is a verifiable, mathematical quantity. It can be measured, observed, and worked with.

If they cannot provide a method for determining information (however that they wish to define it), then they are just making stuff up. You can read about Shannon information on wikipedia.

They probably keep saying something like 'evolution can't add information'. Ask them why. By what basis do they make this claim? What they are basically saying is that nothing can ever be inserted into a strand of DNA... which is demonstrably false.

Remind them that information does not equal meaning. Remind them to answer the question, which has more information 30 minutes of a churchill speech or 30 minutes of white noise.

For all of their claims, they should be able to provide a demonstration of the concepts and be able to explain it to anyone. If they cannot, then their ideas are pretty much useless. Remind them that you have a battery of people ready to help you understand the mathematics.

You can also remind them that in any observation or determination of 'information content', that given a data set and a process, then everyone from an 8th grade student to a Muslim Ph.D. should get exactly the same result. If only Christians get the correct result, then the process is biased and not valid.

Without an unbiased, repeatable test, then they are just babbling and trying to confuse the issue. Do not let them off.

If there are people who are asking questions, then encourage them to read up on information and things like insertion mutations.

Take the claims of the creationist to the next level. One thing that creationists really don't do well is think about the logical consequences of what they say. Much like the example I gave above... if information in DNA cannot increase, then insertion mutations cannot happen... since insertion mutations do happen, then information increases.

I hope that helps.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi,

I'd like some more information on this since I have to make a standing argument.

So here are some questions that came through:

1) Why would they need to apply the definition to nuclotide sequences?

Because nucleotide sequences are the (figurative) book in which this 'genetic information' stuff is (figuratively) written. So if they can't apply their definition to nucleotide sequences, "information"-as-defined-by-them isn't important or relevant to evolution.

Quote

2)They have other definitions of information too are they all wrong?

Yes, there are a number of different definitions of 'information'. Generally speaking, it's just a good idea to specify which definition you're using in the first place, because it helps to avoid confusion. And in the context of the Creationism/evolution argument, it's really a good idea, because by some definitions of 'information', random changes can create new 'information'! So when a Creationist makes noise about how random mutations can't create new information, get them to nail down exactly which definition of 'information' they're using, because (a) it avoids confusion, and (b) if they're using one of the 'information'-definitions under which random mutations can create the stuff, you can nail their lying arse to the wall.

Quote

3) Bioinformatics works with information sciences and Biology all the time. Don't they have the same problem of defenition and measurement?

Yes, real scientists who work with information do need to be clear about which definition of 'information' they're using, and how they measure it. Fortunately, real scientists are clear about these things, so it's not a problem for real scientists.

Quote

4) By asking them to use their information measuring protocol - I assume you mean the stupid durston equation right?

If that's what they claim to be using, yes. If they change their minds and decide "uh, no, the Durston thing isn't what we mean", then insist on their specifying what they do mean. Do not let them get away with vague, formless assertions; insist on specific details.

Quote

5) Are there other ways to measure information, how would I know if he were just guessing?

If they can tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you don't need to guess -- you can use that method to confirm their answer for yourself. And if they can't tell you the method by which they're measuring information, you get to pound on them for not knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

I was confused by this passage from the penultimate paragraph of Bard's review:

Quote

Complex systems have properties that cannot be pre- dicted, albeit that they can be understood with hindsight, and it may well be that the network for some trait (e.g. bone growth or pigmentation pattern) in the offspring has quantitative properties that are very different from those of the parents, not because of new mutations but because the novel mix of the rate constants will yield a trait that is an outlier of the normal distribution (known as a sport in breeding circles). As a result, the offspring may be able to colonise a novel environment far better than its peers. Equally important, this variant will naturally be heritable because it derives from the kinetics of the network (minor variation) rather than additions or losses to the proteins that comprise them.

I understand and agree that a novel combination of existing alleles could result in the offspring having a novel phenotype due to particular network interactions. But how would that novel phenotype be heritable? If it depends on an unlikely combination of alleles, it's not likely to recur in the subsequent generation.

And even if it did result in selective fixation of the relevant combination of alleles, how does that go beyond existing evolutionary theory?

I feel like I must be missing something, but I'm not sure what.

I guess we should really answer this question:

how does mutation-induced variation in a molecular network generate variation in the resulting phenotype? At least in some detail if we are to trash the book review

or am I missing something

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Shapiro plays at being L'enfant terrible, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to assert that variation anticipates need.

He seems to take an extreme position on evolvability and seems to assert that there are mechanisms to increase certain kinds of mutations as a response to stress.

There are in bacteria. Under heat stress, or antibiotic attack, error checking during DNA replication is turned (nearly) off in bacteria (and archaea?) generating huge mutation rates.

This could be why bacteria are so successful. But, this approach would obviously destroy any metazoans.

There are certainly mechanisms that increase mutation rates under stress. But is there evidence that such increased mutation is actually adaptive? Or is it merely an unavoidable consequence of things like needing to relax proofreading in order to replicate damaged DNA?

Shapiro definitely thinks it's adaptive. He even goes so far as to claim that:

Quote

Large-scale genome-wide reorganizations occur rapidly (potentially within a single generation) following activation of natural genetic engineering systems in response to a major evolutionary challenge. The cellular regulation of natural genetic engineering automatically imposes a punctuated tempo on the process of evolutionary change.

This does seem to flirt with ideas like front loading and purposeful evolution. Perhaps he's merely being excessively metaphorical, but I don't see any sense in which individual organisms can be properly described as responding to evolutionary challenge.

He also ignores the seemingly insurmountable issue of how such mechanisms could apply to large organisms. Individual cells in our bodies might respond to stress in some of the ways Shapiro suggests, but there's no known mechanism to allow "successful" responses in a somatic cell to be transmitted to the germ cells.

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Seeing as that the smallest and most simple proteins are composed of 10's of aminoacids,("translated" from the comparison of the triplet codon / anticodon) for example myoglobine has 153, which is about 459 nucliotide bases.

So we're talking about 1 or 2 nucleotide changes on 459, and in most cases the changes don't even cause a variation in the translated aminoacid (every aminoacid can be translated by more codons, therefore by more necleotide sequences).

See these are the measures I'm refering to with regards to the mutations, or at least the most probable one's that can arrise which lead to the adding of information under the form of new codifing sequences: I don't really cionsider the other mutations as they are deleterious, they have a wider applicability on the sequences and therefore the probability of adding codifing information is reduced.

In simple terms, one thing is to change a letter in one chapter of a book at random, and another is to change whole sentences or words.

Southstar said: Well even if your nucleotide is smaller, how did you go about determening a loss of information?

Isobe said: Well simple, just by the fact that the nucleotide sequence is no longer able to codify the same protiens, which then seize to function or at least function less.

Southstar said: Yes and in terms of evolution this is no problem we have a lot of species out there that have lost functions. See evolution dosen't have to have a direction.

Ioseb said: Well yes but it's still proof of a loss of information. Besides the point is that there is no way that you could go from bacteria to human by just changing randomly one or two nucleotides and even then you need to have these passed down to the following generation which is even rarer.

See your silly evolution rests on mutations which don't occur and natural selction which is essentially passive. Selection will never and can never add information, it could favour and organism on the basis of fisical circumstances, but in small it's totaly random and blind.

Southstar said: Still you have shown a loss of ability sooo what? Hamsters have lost their tails, dolphins went back to the sea and?

Isoeb said: Don't be stupid! You don't have the faintest idea of what it would take to do the kind of mutations that you have just mentioned. Your not a scientist like me. You're just a silly girl. What do you know about molecular biology?

Ah and by the way those silly studies that you posted regarding macroevolution well that was all microevolution. You know you don't have any proof of macroevolution so don't try pawning micro studies. Remember what carl sagan said: Great claims require great proof. You don't have any.

Southstar said: goodness Carl is shaking in his tomb and could visit you tonight. I'd watch my back.

---- end of transcript ----

To me it seems he's avoiding the difficult questions with technobable. But I would need some valid arguments to take him down. If I just reply that it's rubbish the fence sitting people will say "why do you say that"? So I need to show that it's rubbish.

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Just refer them to the Evolution on a Chip article. The end result was a 90-fold increase in efficiency and there were 4 mutations (some of which were multiple nucleotides) that resulted in this.

So, not only can it happen, it DOES happen and in a controlled environment in which no designer was found fiddling with the RNA sequence.

You can also refer them to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover ISD court transcript in which Michael Behe is toasted on the same subject.

In short, let's say that there is a 1 in trillion trillion chance for the mutations to occur. Unfortunately, the creationists forget that there is a trillion bacteria in a few grams of soil (for example) and there are many trillions of grams of soil in the world.

So, even a trillion trillion chance approaches 1 when one is discussing all life on the planet.

Sure, it's more difficult to deal with something like this in large animals and plants, but then (as the creationists remind us) large animal and plant populations change very slowly.

Your friend Ioseb may claim to be a scientist, but he(?) doesn't sound like he knows what he's talking about. He mentions "Malaria or HIV plasmoid." No such things. Malaria is the disease caused by a parasite called Plasmodium. HIV is a virus. Neither one is a plasmid, which is a form of self-replicating DNA.

He says Sequence A produces Protein B through replication, transcription, and translation. Wrong! Replication is not involved in going from DNA sequence to protein. Replication of Sequence A just gives you more copies of Sequence A.

As for this:

Quote

Please note that the modification of a nucleotide is an extremely rare event, 2 nucleotides are immensly rare, 3 are astronomicaly rare, 4 are next to impossible.

Plus he's still dodging your question of how to quantitatively measure information in a DNA sequence. He says it's based on the number of kilobase pairs and the number of mutations, but that's hand waving. Which has more information, in his opinion - sequence 1: AAAAAAAAAAAA, or sequence 2: ATGACCGACTAG? They're the same length, so do they have equal information? What if the first base of each is mutated to a C. How much has the information in each sequence changed? Just one A-to-C mutation in each, so it must be the same amount, right?

And at this point the lay audience switches off and goes away happy that "their" guy appears to be having a scientific argument and therefore there must be something in it or some controversy.

Which is exactly what the Creationists/IDers count on. Except they've also got a sophisticated (well) racket going on where they ask you to "buy their book" where the secret is fully revealed.

If, when asked, they cannot give a specific numerical value of "information" present in a given thing, despite claiming that they can, then how can they possibly claim that information has gone up or down at all? If they can't measure it how do they know it exists at all, never mind has it increased or decreased!

When pressed on this they typically say at UD: "It's so much it's obvious, it does not actually need to be measured".

KF for example claims there are billions of examples of FSCI out there on the internet, in the form of intelligible messages (I hope he's not counting his own in that...), but can't quite bring himself to do the calculation when asked, referring people to "Abel" et al. It can be done, according to him, but not by him.

Some organisms are fully sequenced. Which one has more information then another? Less? What's the actual figure for FSCI (or whatever units they are measuring it in, ask them that too) for the organism? Can they show that calculation?

Then, if they answer that, they can meet Mr Onion.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

[after a cursory look at that wikipage]So your Creationist buddies have a protocol by which they can measure information (don't see it, myself, but if they're citing that wikipage as providing such a protocol, they must see it, right?). Again, groovy. Your next step should be, ask them to use that information-measuring protocol to determine how much information is contained in various nucleotide sequences, particularly pairs of sequences whose information content you then compare.

Hi everyone,

here was the answer I got from our friend Ioseb hopefully my translation works out ok:

------transcript starts here -----------

Southstar said: Well how do you determine the amount of information? what process do you use?

Ioseb said: Well I use the unit of measure on the base of the nucliotide molecule (DNA or RNA), expressed in thousands of bases (kb)

If your boy Ioseb really does measure 'information' by counting the nucleotides, he's already lost -- because by the number-of-nucleotides method for measuring information, any mutation which inserts extra nucleotides into a genetic sequence increases the information of that DNA! You should point this out. The lurkers will appreciate it.

Quote

By measuring the modifications taken place in the genomic sequence of the Malaria or HIV plasmoid through the years it is possible to quantify, how much has changed in terms of complexity, what has been gained and what has determined no change.

This is bafflegab. It is most certainly not a clear answer to the question of "how do you measure information?"; at best, it's a vague assertion about a perhaps-hypothetical method which possibly could measure information. Give Ioseb a pair of nucleotide sequences, one of which is a minor modification of the other. Ask him which of the two sequences has more information in it -- and insist that he show his work. He won't be able to, so make his failure utterly crystal-clear in the minds of all readers. No matter how impressive his sciencey-sounding verbiage is, his inability to actually determine how much information is in a nucleotide sequence will go a long way towards convincing people that Ioseb is full of shit.

Quote

As I explained: a sequence A; let's say produces a protein B following 3 molecular processes which are at the base of life. (in extremely simple terms replication, transcription and translation) all that needs to be done is to verify how much this sequence has changed after the mutation so as to measure at least the quantity of nucleotides that diffirentiate it.

The phrase "at least" suggests that there's more to his information-measuring method than just counting nucleotides. Ask what else is needed, besides just the number of nucleotides.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information. He pointed out the following paper as important to his argument:http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf

It's our well known friend Behe, but it's peer reviewed. Still reading through it I don't see anything that could be a visioned as anti-evolution. He does seem to lean towards evolution only subtracts though.

And I believe that his argument will be: see on a molecular level all that can happen is negative - loss of function / information. Therefore there is no way that you could have increased complexity through evolution. So your only option is things were "created" complex or through "divine" genetic intervention.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Yes I believe he is heading that way, by showing that all mutations create negative information.

Okay, fine -- give your 'friend' the two-sequence test. Provide pairs of nucleotide sequences; ask which sequence in each pair has the most information; insist that he show his work; and do not allow him to weasel out of either (a) providing answers to your "which sequence has more information?" questions, or (b) explaining how he came up with his answers.

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

Yes I often remind them that the absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Unfortunately for them they always have to agree to this cause all of there idea stands on this principle.

marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter... 2nd Answer: some (unspecified) records indicate it's around 6000 years ago.3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Cheers Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

One thing that could be repeated frequently is that the existence of unanswered questions is not an argument against answers that we do have. Unanswered questions are expected to exist regardless of which theories are correct.

Henry

[evil grin] And if your Creationist buddies are insistent that "no answers = reason to reject", ask them some of the many, many questions which no IDiot has ever yet answered...What did the Intelligent Designer do?When did the Intelligent Designer do it?What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?Etc, etc...

Oh come'on such easy questions to answer? ;)

What did the Intelligent Designer do?

Answer: look around

My suggested response to this non-answer: Unless you're saying that the Intelligent Designer did absolutely everything, 'look around' isn't an answer. Are you saying the Intelligent Designer did ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING?If they reply "Yep, I sure am saying that," you can follow up by reminding that that "absolutely everything" includes ebola, brown recluse spiders, etc etc etc, so they're saying the Intelligent Designer designed ebola. And It designed the bubonic plague. Ask them why the Intelligent Designer designed all this nasty stuff to kill humans. A reply of "no, the Designer didn't do that" indicates that they were lying when they claimed the Designer did everything, so hammer on them for their dishonesty.If they reply "Uh, no, I'm not saying the Designer designed everything," follow up by pointing out that if the Intelligent Designer didn't do EVERYTHING, there must necessarily be some things It didn't do... so what things weren't designed by the Designer? Insist on specifics, and don't let anybody forget that the guys who are doing their damnedest to avoid answering this question, are the same people who had been yammering about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a scientific theory.

Quote

When did the Intelligent Designer do it?

1st Answer: It doesn't really matter...

Suggested reply: Hammer on them for their blatant hypocrasy. "Hold it. You were just making noise about how unanswered questions are a good reason to reject a theory! How come you're saying 'I don't care' here, and not 'Gosh, I don't have an answer, so that means I should give up on ID' ?"

Insist on them saying exactly which 'documents' those are. If it's the Bible, make it very clear to everybody that this is all well and good as a religious belief, and ask them if they have any science to support what they're saying. You don't need to sneer at religion, but do make it very clear that Religion Ain't Science, and if they're rejecting a scientific theory for religious reasons, they shouldn't claim they're rejecting it on scientific grounds, because that's a big, fat, hairy LIE. If they can't actually identify any of these 'documents' they mentioned, hammer on their hypocrasy -- what, unanswered questions only cast doubt on a scientific theory when it's a theory they don't happen to agree with? yeah, right, sure, you bet...

Quote

3nd answer: The designer has never stopped doing whatever you think he might have done.

Remind them that they don't have a good answer about what the Designer did. Ask them how the hell they know that the Designer is still at work, if they don't have a clue about what work that might have been.

Quote

What tools and techniques did the Intelligent Designer use when It was doing whatever the heck It did?

Answer: It doesn't really say how he did it besides it's not really our business to know.

My suggested response to this: "Okay, so you don't really think unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory." Hammer on their hypocracy, yada yada yada.

Quote

What did the Intelligent Designer design (various IDists have made noise about how It coulda designed anything from the flagellum to the entire Universe)?

Answer: That's not the question, the question we should ask is: (and then they ask another totally different question which they can answer!) - itallian polititians also use this way out often :D

Don't let them get away with changing the subject. "Yes, [verbiage they disgorged about irrelevant question] is all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with the question I asked. What did the Designer design?" Just keep at it, and make it very clear that anybody who thinks unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory, is the last person who should be making noise about "oh, that isn't the question".

tl:dr summary: Hammer on your Creationist buddies for their hypocrisy. Throw a harsh spotlight on all the bits of their position which would require them to reject that position, if they actually were serious about "unanswered questions are a good reason to doubt a scientific theory", and point out (for the lurkers) that the game your Creationist buddies are playing is called "heads I win, tails you lose" .

The whole thrust of the argument on EN+V is that X could not have done Y therefore Z must have done it instead.

Quote

However, there is another possibility, namely the scientific inclusion of intelligent design. In contrast to neo-Darwinism, Lönnig notes the ID-based view can "be falsified by proving (among other points) that the probability to form an ICS by purely natural processes is high, that specified complexity is low, and finally, by generating an ICS by random mutations in a species displaying none."

Sure, ID is a possibility. So are invisible Unicorns from Mars.

The point is that the ID based view does not need to be falsified as it is not supported to start with in the first place.

All we have is a gap "How did X form - we don't know" and ID does not get to fill that gap without some positive evidence of it's own. Which it does not have.

So all that paper points to is a gap in our understanding of a particular process and if that's evidence for ID then it can be said that every day the "evidence" for ID is getting smaller and smaller as we find new things out.

And every time we've found such an answer ID is never involved. Ever. So what are the chances that it'll be involved this particular time?

It's just ID of the gaps, nothing new here.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?

Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

Quote

After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."

So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

If the trait evolved multiple times independently, then why do so many plants still lack such a "lantern" protective shelter?

Ah, yes. The old 'if evolution is true, how come humans haven't evolved wings' ruse. Just because a trait evolves and is selected for in some species doesn't mean it should be selected for in every species.

Quote

After noting that some proponents of neo-Darwinism make unfalsifiable appeals to unknown selective advantages, [Lonnig] concludes that neo-Darwinism is not making falsifiable predictions and finds that this "infinity of mostly non-testable explanations (often just-so-stories) itself may put the theory outside science."

So if a "Darwinist" appeals to unknown selective advantages, he's guilty of making unfalsifiable predictions and being unscientific. But it's totally fine for an IDist to appeal to an unknown designer, right? At least the Darwinist is appealing to a mechanism that's proven to exist.

Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds. I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

It seems that their definition of information actually refers to the phenotype and specifically the "function", but not fitness.For instance, antibiotic resistance would be a loss of information if the altered protein is rendered less effective in the absence of antibiotic. I doesn't matter for them that the bacterium is much fitter otherwise. Gene duplications often generate proteins with new functions. However, this is rarely observed at the intraspecific level, and the IDiots might claim that the duplication was designed.

Hello,

Finaly I forced Ioseb to give me some more information on what he considers as information and how he plans to measure it here is the transcript:

----------transcript starts here-------------

Southstar: You measured what? As I have shown by the nucleotide sequences above you were not able to tell which had more information... case closed. Until you do so you're really going to need another argument.

Ioseb: Sorry you didn't prove anything with your little game. I have already told you that we are not interested in measuring the information. The real question is whether information exists and if this information is specified and complex.

You've just run out of critisims haven't you that's why you keep asking for measurement.

Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.

This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

For example the section of a ribosome of 1600 amminoacids and a nucleotide is obviously more complicated than a Myglobin of 153 aminoacids

But between the two molecules of 150 aminoacids i'm in no way interested in determening which has more information. But rather what information they hold. You know Information is commonly used in biology.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAASequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAGSequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene,

if you change it from

AUGGUUAAGGGA

to

AGGGUUAAGGGA

all that simply happens is that the robosome will not recognise the RNA and won't even start the translation process.

So what do we have protien non produced = loss of function = problems or death of the organism

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheeseSequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen. You wouldn't get up to get the cheese with the second sequence would you.

Southstar Said: Well listen in the end of the game even if you are right you have just proved a loss of function sooo what this in no way disproves evolution. look here, here is a study that just goes to show gain of function http://www.plosbiology.org/article....0060085 - Biology on a chip.

Ioseb said: Thanks i rest my case! You brought a study which proves that without inteligence nothing happens. I'll be using this little jewel that you supplied to me many more times. But first I tell your decendent from monkey friends why:Now let's see evolution requires processes that are by chance and that there is no divine intervention and what do you bring here. A study that proves that you can't get there unless you skew the chances and you interviene through intelligence. Wow The scientists in this study have created a controlled enviorment , and skewed the program so as to give them the resault they wanted. THE PRESTIGE! This people is what the fake science is pawning you. Because they were not able to find proof in nature they fabricated it. just like the whole theory, it depends on pure fabrications.

Go home to your monkey friends and tell them thanks for further proof AGAINST evolution. If they wound stop playing videogames they might understand that nature is designed by God.

Southstar said: Okay so in the ndo you just proved a loss of function sooo what? Evolution doesn't have a direction. A lot of animals have lost functions so?

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything... Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

See I have presented a peer reviewed study by an eminent scientist that proves that loss of function is almost the law. You have shown nothing!

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

--------- transcript ends here----------

I think it is obvious that he is now mixing up meaning with information. He would chose the churchil speech and say: That what counts is that it gives you extra information it makes you do something. Now he's not interested in counting the duration of the speech he's counting the extra quality what it makes you do.

Any idea on how to break this down?

CheersMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Intelligence is proven to exist, too, and to produce functional structures.

It's just that God's intelligence is very different, so you'd expect his designs to be very different as well.

So the analogy holds. I mean, except for God's intelligence being so unlike any we've ever seen, and the functional structures being a great deal different from anything we've produced.

Glen Davidson

Intelligence is proven to exist, but an intelligent designer is not. Plus, which is worse - a scientist appealing to unknown selective advantages? Or an IDist appealing to the unknown/unknowable motives of an unknown/unknowable/undemonstrated designer?

Ioseb: Anyway here's how it's done let me explain it to you since you and your friends are stupid beyond belief. We look at the position of the nucleotied and/or the aminoacid within biological molecules these have always a precise physical, chemical and structural significance. These represent specific information, all that needs to be done is to count the nucleotides and the aminoacids in the sequence so as to determine the intrinsic complexity.

This is the measure of information I'm talking about.

Wrong. The vast majority of proteins include amino acids that are completely superfluous to their structure and function. They can be replaced with other amino acids or even deleted with no effect. So no, you can't just count amino acids, because number of amino acids doesn't directly correspond to function, complexity, information, meaning, or anything else he's suggesting.

Let's take three sequences the first two are your invented sequences. The third is a real sequence. (See scientists use real things not like the ones you make up).

Sequenza 1:AAAAAAAAAAAASequenza 2:ATGACCGACTAGSequenza 3:AUGGUUAAGGGA

See now sequence 3 has the same probability of being genereated by chance as the other two, but it is a real RNA sequence starting with a codon (AUG) and the codons for translating amminoacids valinm lisin and glicin.

So if we make the assumption that this sequence codifies in the begining a protiene, it would not contain only information of the random sequence of letters but it would also contain information (contained in the example in the first triplet regarding) reagarding the amminoacid start, the same for each triplet which together contains a specific information which can be chemical/physical or structural. This is INDESPENSIBLE for the function of the protiens produced.

Now my sequence is the only one of the three that permit the formation of a protiene

Really? I guess Ioseb didn't notice that Sequence 2 is simply the DNA version of the following:

AUGACCGACUAG

Note that it also contains the AUG start codon (which codes for methionine), followed by codons for threonine (ACC) and aspartate (GAC). Even better, Sequence 2 includes a stop codon (UAG), with is also INDISPENSIBLE for function.

Quote

Now do you understand the information I'm talking about.

I understand it a lot better than Ioseb does. That's clear.

Quote

So now I've proven to everyone that information exists and it can be seen.

Congratulations to Ioseb for "proving" what no one was disputing. We all agree that information exists. We even agree that it can be measured, as long as you're careful about precisely defining the kind of information you're measuring.

The issue is not whether information exists. The issue is Ioseb's (and others') claim that information can't be increased by evolution. To wit:

Quote

Ioseb said: well see you evolutionists suggest that we have passed form simple organisms to complex organisms. Read your silly theory. From bacteria to humans. So according to the theory we have moved from less complex organisms to more complex organisms. In accordance with this there must have been a increase in biological information humans have many more functions than bacteria. So we had to have new functions that had to develop naturally (not in your stupid PS2 game), new functions would have led to new organs and new life forms.

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that shows increase function has lead to anything... Actually show me a peered reviewed paper that shows that functions can increase

Of course, Ioseb may object that demonstrating evolution of such a relatively simple new function is a long way from demonstrating that fins can evolve into legs and wings. And it's true that we don't (yet) understand the details of how that could happen. But we haven't yet had the luxury of running controlled evolutionary experiments over the course of several million years. What we have done is proven that evolution really happens on observable scales, and that it's consistent with the reams of data from molecular phylogenies & the fossil & geological record going back billions of years.

What has Ioseb shown? Can he provide any shred of positive evidence for a designer (or whatever else he thinks accounts for biological complexity)?

Quote

To the readers of this forum: I think that we can rest assured that science, the real science has and will triumph over this blinded and evil idea.

And here we see a clue to Ioseb's real objection to evolution: it's "evil." And what makes it evil? Could it be because it contradicts Ioseb's religious beliefs? Naaah.

P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Just in case you don't understand for your thick little brain here is a simple example

sequence1: get me some cheeseSequence2: eef hg thki loffr

See they both have the same amount of Shannon information but sequence 1 has extra information encoded it tells you more.

Of course we have only Ioseb's word for it that "eef hg thki loffr" doesn't mean something in some obscure language.

Sequence3: zhw n wjs rh rny Sequence4: jmz nj nhy n snw

One of these is "bring me some wine" in ancient Egyptian (there's apparently no attested word for "cheese"). The other doesn't mean anything I know of; it's just a string of letters and spaces. Which one has more information?

One thing I don't get is why somebody would claim that proving sufficiency of natural processes would somehow disprove "some intelligent thing did it".

The hypothesis that something intelligent did something does not logically imply that natural processes couldn't do something equivalent; claiming otherwise is saying that an intelligence couldn't make use of natural processes even if it wanted to (which is something humans do all the time).

You could show him a fractal and ask him if that is a lot of information or a little bit of information. If he says 'a lot' then he's an idiot (well, beyond what we already knew).

If you're talking about the information needed to generate it, that would be a little. But what if you're talking about a list of the coordinates of the pixels to display it? ;)

Henry

Do you REALLY want to get into arguments about Shannon verus Kolmogrov?

If so, I recommend reading Shallit and Elsberry, "Playing Games with Probability: Dembski's Complex Specified Information." 2005 "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism" Rutgers University Press

Use the paperback

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God caused the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God cause the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

That's actually an interesting point. We know (for example) that Canis familaris has been selectively bred for thousands of years... and yet they are all dogs.

The ID proponents generally consider this to be a case of front-loading... in which case, the ID proponents really need to show the genes for some of the odd domestic dog mutations exist in wolfs/coyotes. For example, they would need to show that the actual allele that creates the smushed noses of pugs or the unique traits of the dachshund (including the variety of coats, leg lengths, and sizes) already exist in precursor organisms.

That's a very interesting tack and I'm curious about the results. I would suspect that the unique mutations do not exist in wolfs or coyotes, but instead can be traced to mutations in alleles that are in wolfs or coyotes. This would neatly destroy the frontloading option.

A similar case could be done with the scottish fold cat, since we know exactly when that mutation occurred in the wild. The problem is that we really don't have an ancestral species for the domestic cats to look at.

The other option for the ID crowd would be to admit that the mutations happened and in the way science shows they occurred, but under the direction of an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, they cannot do that because it would give them the worst of both worlds. They would be forced to admit that science is right and be required to show that their designer of choice was actually involved.

Which pretty much leaves them with front-loading.

It's even worse for the YEC crowd. They must use front-loading to explain the existence of the 670+ HLA-A alleles in the human population. By definition, the YECs must accept that only 10 alleles existed at the time of the Flood and they have to get the additional 660+ alleles in less than 6000 years. Just that would be a mutation rate to turn everyone into cancer ridden piles of jello, but they also have to deal with all the other multiple alleles (not to mention all the human specific diseases that either existed on the ark or came into being since the ark... as Rick would say... "Oops").

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year. I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify. All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen. In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking. We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

If your opponents won't even accept that evolution can generate new functionality without intelligent intervention, I suggest you not get sucked into a discussion of abiogenesis. Although there are some great hypotheses about abiogenesis, the evidence base is still virtually nothing compared to what's been proven for evolution.

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!

I will say there is tons of research on the subject and nothing, so far, says that anything is impossible.

On the other hand, it does not have anything to do with evolution and is a completely different matter.

I have to agree. Make them say what caused it.

You can always play this game with them too.

"OK, you win, evolution is total bunk. What replaces it? What research can be done in the area? What tools, products, and processes might come from it?"

And don't get sucked into the "anthropology, forensic science and SETI are based on ID" discussion. They aren't.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Another thought: even if the current theory was wrong in some areas, it's still a useful approximation. If it weren't at least that, scientists would have stopped using it already. It doesn't take technical knowledge of the subject to figure that.

For comparison, consider Newton's laws of motion. At low speeds and weak gravity, they give results that are generally within the margin of error of all but the most precise measurements. (Just don't look at the precession of Mercury's orbit!

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 21 2011,21:54

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Hi,

Don't get me wrong I fully understand what you mean. But a logical argument could be made along the lines of:

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

The devils advocate.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

But what's wrong with that?

We start from knowing nothing and progress from there.

They start from already knowing the answer and never changing their mind.

Given the short amount of time that this has been undergoing research compared to the thousands of years they've had (as the default position) I think our position has done fantastically well.

You have the outline of a sketch of a cake. They have a blank piece of paper with "poof" written on it.

Call them on it! Ask them why they demand evidence to a standard that they cannot themselves provide! Ask them why their position is more logical then "we're not sure but here are some plausible pathways".

Give them the link I provided to the Nasa workshop and ask them how filling that cake is compared to their cake?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Hi,

Well my intrest is: 1) Seeing how his argument is flawed2) Learning by his mistake what the real version is3) Proving to others in the forum that he dosen't have a leg to stand on.4) Gain knowlege on how to counter future arguments.5) Have fun.

PS some good new my brother is out! now I'm going to stay there until others snap out of it too... or until they kick me out. But even then I've learned sooo much that i'm going to gatecrash another forum so that I can learn some more and have a good time too.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Just a few ideas.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..

Yes. At least the in the US most people's sum total of science education is one class in 9th grade and one in 8th grade.

Not only that, but they are willfully ignorant. Meaning that they don't want to know that they are wrong.

Quote

2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.

Yes, The ringleaders fall into two types (IME), the True Believer who is basically a fundamentalist and too ignorant to know anything about his beliefs and what he's saying. But he's loud and a pretty good debater (unless you recognize and point out all the fallacies and rhetorical tricks.

The other type is the guy who knows he's wrong, but has sucked in some True Believers and either refuses to admit his mistake or is making some profit off of it.

Quote

3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.

Yes, yes, yes. Until you discover that they are totally immune to knowledge, in which case a little humor at their expense can lighten the mood.

Quote

4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.

Yes. Atheism has nothing to do with science. IME, the creationists can't understand the difference between science, atheism, and religion.

In religion, they are told the truth by their pastors or church leaders. They can't understand that science doesn't work like that. It's why they attack Darwin and Dawkins so much. They think that by discrediting them, they are making headway against the science.

To, their entire worldview is fixed around religion being incorporated into their lives. They have real difficulty separating religion (or non-religion) from anything else and can't understand that religion plays no role in science and vice versa. Any attempt to combine the two is doomed to fail (including atheism).

Further, they can't understand that a scientist can say things as a non-scientist. Dawkins is a good example of this. He does good science. He also does good philosophy. The creationists often assume that by attacking one they can make headway against the other. They are wrong and can't understand why.

Quote

5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.

A thousand times yes. I'm glad it's working for you.

Strawman arguments are the basis of creationist attacks on science. They can't argue against the actual science and they refuse to learn what it really is.

Quote

6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.

You're are very good at this. That's the best way.

Quote

7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.

Just be VERY VERY careful to state that is is an analogy and that it is used to illustrate the point, not define it.

Analogies (like our discussion with forastero and the Big Bang) can cause lots of confusion, especially when the creationists attack the analogy instead of the science.

Quote

8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Yes.

[quote]Just a few ideas.

Marty

Your points are all exactly on point. Well done.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

The thing is, those ringleaders are right: Science is against religion. Science is religion's greatest, most deadly enemy... but not because science actively tries to destroy religion. Rather, what science does to religion is far more cruel and lethal than even the most intransigently hostile opposition:Science ignores religion.You may be thinking, if science ignores religion, what's all the fuss about? The answer is that religion cannot afford to be ignored; in order to thrive, religion must be at the center of everything, must be at the center of all spotlights. So when science shows how things work, and gets results, and keeps on showing how things work, and keeps on getting results, all without paying religion any attention at all, for good or ill......when science does all that and keeps on doing all that, year in and year out, decade in and decade out, century in and century out......science makes religion unimportant. Trivial. Irrelevant.And religious believers know it. Religions can die when the last adherent is slaughtered -- but they're just as dead when people stop caring about them. By coming up with usable, religion-free explanations for things, science shows that Not Caring About Religion is a viable option. And since religions have, by and large, lost their former power to torture and kill unbelievers... Not Caring About Religion is an option more and more people are choosing. And this state of affairs is flatly intolerable, in the eyes of someone whose whole life, nay, whose entire existence has always revolved around their religion.That's what the reality-based section of the populace is up against. And that's why Creationists are so friggin' resistant to correction and learning.

Just FYI, it's not that the studies belong to the universities. It's that the papers are often published in for-profit journals. Such journals don't typically provide free full-text access because they're trying to make money.

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap

It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap

It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap

It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

Quote

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap

It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first...

While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.

Quote

The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could.

The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?"

If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas?

Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution.

Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with?

For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution.

Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.

So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence?

Just ask them what it explains and how....

"It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh.

It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is!

I get the feeling that they are looking for something you can't answer which sooner or later comes up then they say:

(Here's a mock argument)

Southstar: Well we can't really explain x yet, but science is working on it besides just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean the designer™ did it.

TARD1: Well see, you have faith in the science... even though you don't have an answer you have faith, so science is a faith.

TARD 2: Ah and not to mention that it's a sect, see they all have faith in each others work, nobody even bothers to check if something is wrong they just assume it's right cause another scientist said so. Just look at a research paper full of assumptions of other scientists your just building a house of cards on nothing. on faith. Since when does a biologist check to see if an astronmers conclusions are right they just believe they are right.

So if you have faith in science, it's misplaced, cause we hold all the faith cookies.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I was thinking about how ordinary it really is to infer derivation (in relation to comments on this thread), and how oddly IDiots deny it, so I Googled one of Stephen Meyer’s references to it. He also mentions it in his book Signature in the Cell, but I didn’t want to write that out. So here’s Meyer noting how we infer derivation, only he weirdly calls it detection of “design”:

Quote

STEVE: No. You just put words into my mouth. I was saying that the scientists in many fields -– you and I were talking about plagiarism before we came on the air -– it’s possible now with programs to detect papers that students turn in that have been plagiarized. Well that’s a form of inferring to design. Kind of sneaky malevolent design, but when you see a string of characters that match up from two different strings, highly improbable arrangement, that match, we call that a specification and you have improbability in specification, we design people say that indicates intelligence. Well, that’s a form of reasoning that is not only – let me finish…

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1246.html

Only in the loosest and most question-begging sense (in what way is it “design”?) is this detecting “design.” It’s detecting derivation, and if we can assume derivation in his case, why not in the case of life?

Life doesn’t “look designed” except in a very amorphous and agency-biased manner, but it looks derived through and through, and all reasonable tests for such derivation support that inference. Behe accepts that (without accepting that it is the limits of known mechanisms of derivation and adaptation that give us the best indication of evolution), while Meyer apparently is more of a traditional creationist, nevertheless trotting out the fact that we can detect derivation readily (with changes, certainly, in the case of human judgment) without understanding how that speaks volumes for evolutionary evidence.

Follow the evidence they say, and then mold the evidence to fit their presuppositions, not accepting what is obvious from that evidence.

I know that this doesn't speak to any specifics here, it's just general to what creationists do, shoehorn anything into creationism or "design," even great examples of how we do detect derivation reliably. Or should we suppose that God just copied thoughts from person to person, being the source of all truth, as several religious plagiarizers have explained their obviously derivative works?

Would he have accepted a magical explanation for "so-called plagiarism" when he was a professor? If not, why does he accept, indeed, relish, one for all of the derivation found in life?

The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based. Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature.

ThanksMarty

The particular article, "Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation" was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing. It was not likely reviewed anonymously in the same way as a journal article, but was certainly read carefully by the book's editor.

The so-called "law" seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or 'applied' it. It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of polypoid hybrids that then shed, or mutated duplicated genes than any point mutations alone.

What I suspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 25 2011,13:06

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith.

If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting.

no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say.

'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based. Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got.

Don't want to go there...

Yes, of course.

However it depends on how you define "right".

Was Newton right or wrong?

Was Einstein?

It's not that we're "never right" it's rather that the accuracy of our rightness is constantly increasing whereas theirs is static and unchanging.

So if they are in fact wrong (as somebody has to be as not all religions can be right by definition) the chances of them actually finding that out is zero. So they are potentially wasting their lives worshipping the wrong god.

Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantium humeris insidentes) is a Western metaphor meaning "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past," a contemporary interpretation. However, the metaphor was first recorded in the twelfth century and attributed to Bernard of Chartres.[1] It was famously uttered by seventeenth-century scientist Isaac Newton (see below). The picture is derived from the Greek mythology where the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders.

They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings